Study Tools

Deviance

Structural Functional Theory

Crime

A third important sociological framework is the conflict theory. Unlike the structural
functional theory, which views society as a peaceful unit, conflict theory
interprets society as a struggle for power between groups engaging in conflict for
limited resources. Karl Marx is the founder of conflict theory. Conflict theorists
like Marx posit that there are two general categories of people in industrialized societies: the
capitalist class and the working class.

The capitalist class, or elite, consists of those in positions of wealth
and power who own the means of production or control access to the means of production. The
working class consists of relatively powerless individuals who sell their labor to
the capitalist class. It is advantageous to the elite to keep the working class in a relatively
disadvantaged position so that they can maintain the status quo and their own privileged
positions.

Conflict Theory and Crime

Conflict theorists believe that the broad division of people into these two categories
is inherently unequal. They cite the criminal justice system to support their claim. The
capitalist class passes laws designed to benefit themselves. These same laws are detrimental to
the working class. Both groups commit acts of deviance, but the system the capitalists created
defines deviance differently for each group. The criminal justice system judges and punishes
each group differently.

In addition, the elite can often afford expensive lawyers and are sometimes on a
first-name basis with the individuals in charge of making and enforcing laws. Members of the
working class generally do not have these advantages.

White-Collar Crimes

Conflict theorists also look at the types of crimes committed by members of the two
classes. The working class is more likely to commit so-called street crime, such as robbery,
assault, or murder. Members of the elite are less likely to commit acts of violence but more
likely to engage in white-collar crime, or nonviolent crime committed by the
capitalist class during the course of their occupations.

White-collar criminals are difficult to catch and prosecute for two main reasons:

White-collar crime is difficult to identify. It leaves little physical evidence and
no easily identifiable victim. In order to detect white-collar crime, authorities must have
knowledge of high finance to discover that embezzlement, for example, has taken place.

White-collar criminals are sometimes able to use their power and influence to avoid
prosecution. Because of their social and economic clout, white-collar criminals rarely face
criminal prosecution. When prosecuted, they are much less likely than members of the working
class to receive a prison sentence. They are more likely to pay a fine as punishment for
their crime.

White-Collar Crime: Not Dangerous?

Generally, white-collar crimes are not harmful or dangerous to the general public.
But there are exceptions. In 2001, consumer advocates accused the Ford Motor Corporation of
equipping some of their vehicles with faulty tires, made by Bridgestone/Firestone. Ford had
already recalled the tires from vehicles sold in other countries but made no such recall on
tires on those sold in the United States. Over 200 people died and more than 800 were injured
in automobile accidents allegedly caused by the defective tires.

Deviance and Power

Conflict theorist Alexander Liazos points out that the people we commonly
label as deviant are also relatively powerless. According to Liazos, a homeless person living
in the street is more likely to be labeled deviant than an executive who embezzles funds from
the company he or she runs.

Because the people in positions of power make the laws of any given society, they
create laws to benefit themselves. According to the conflict view of deviance, when rich and
powerful people are accused of wrongdoing, they have the means to hire lawyers, accountants,
and other people who can help them avoid being labeled as deviant. Lastly, members of a society
generally believe that laws are inherently fair, which can draw attention away from the
possibility that these laws might be unfairly applied or that a law itself might not be good or
just.